Will
the Sept. 11 Commission follow the example set by Congress and the
Intelligence Community and let itself be intimidated by Vice President Dick
Cheney?

Now that the commission’s
staff report has pulled the rug out from under the notion so successfully
fostered by the administration that Iraq played a role in the attacks of
9/11, no one should be surprised if the commissioners pull the rug out from
under the staff. There are disquieting signs that this has already begun to
happen.

The stakes could not be
higher for the president and vice president. Arguably, the commission is in
position to play in 2004 a role analogous to that played by the Supreme
Court in 2000 in ensuring the election of George W. Bush and Cheney. This, I
believe, accounts for the dyspeptic reaction of the two to the staff report
and the press play accorded it last week.

New York Times pundit
William Safire is also outraged. In his column today he lashes out at the
commission chairman, Republican Tom Kean, and the vice chairman, Democrat
Lee Hamilton, for letting themselves be “jerked around by a manipulative
staff.” Safire drives home the point that the staff conclusion concerning
Iraq and 9/11 was “not a judgment of the panel of commissioners,” but rather
“an interim report of the commission’s runaway staff.”

Republican Commissioners Fall Into Line

Appearing Sunday on ABC’s
This Week, Sept. 11 commission chairman Kean fell in line, saying repeatedly
that the staff report is only an “interim report.” Not only did he note it
is “not finished,” the commissioners themselves have not been involved in it
so far and the final report will include whatever “new information” becomes
available.

It is not hard to see what
is coming. On Thursday Cheney told the press that he “probably” had more
intelligence information than had been made available to the commission.
Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican stalwart, told Meet the Press
Sunday “the vice president was right when he said that he may have things
that we don’t have. And we are now in the process of getting the latest
intelligence.”

Flash back, if you dare, to
other “intelligence” promoted by Cheney: the aluminum tubes that turned out
not to be suitable for fashioning nuclear materials after all; the mobile
“biological warfare labs” that produced nothing more lethal than hydrogen
for weather balloons; the infamous report, based on forged documents,
alleging that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

The
Perils Of Partisanship

What is clear is that
Washington is in for a month of partisan wrangling among the commissioners
and staff before the July 26 deadline for the report—partisanship of the
kind demonstrated at the grilling of former counter-terrorism chief Richard
Clark. This time it will all take place behind closed doors. Lehman conceded
on Meet the Press, “We’re under tremendous political pressure…in this
election year.”

Indeed, the commission was
highly politicized from the get-go, with its work carefully choreographed.
Subpoena power, for example, requires a majority vote among the five
Republican and five Democrat commissioners. And, as the public hearings have
already shown, the White House can count on seasoned protection from heavy
hitters like Fred Fielding, legal counsel to Presidents Nixon and Reagan, as
well as from Lehman and the other Republican commissioners.

Once again, “intelligence”
will be front and center, with Cheney in the background as super-analyst.
CIA Director George Tenet is packing his bags for his July 11 departure, and
there is zero chance his well-mannered deputy, John McLaughlin, will depart
from what has become customary practice—at the CIA and elsewhere— and stand
up to the vice president.

The
Neuralgic Point

When Meet the Press’ Tim
Russert quoted The New York Times’ contention that the commission staff
report “directly contradicts public statements by Bush and Cheney regarding
Iraq and 9/11,” Lehman, borrowing from Cheney’s lexicon, branded the Times
report “outrageously irresponsible journalism.” Echoing Kean’s remarks,
Lehman added parenthetically, “And, again, this is a staff statement; the
commissioners have not yet addressed this issue.”

Democrat Commissioner
Richard Ben-Veniste had just told Russert, “There was no Iraqi involvement
in 9/11. That’s what our commission found. That’s what our staff, which
included former high-ranking CIA officials, who know what to look for
(found).”

Interesting. Ben-Veniste
saying it is what the commission found; Kean and Lehman saying the
commissioners have not yet addressed the issue. A harbinger of the wrangling
to come.

That
Troublesome Constitution Again

Most observers are familiar
with the rhetorical landscape with which Bush and Cheney persuaded a large
majority of Americans that Iraq played a role in the attacks of 9/11, and
many shrug this off as familiar spin by politicians inclined to take
liberties with the facts. So far little attention has been given to the fact
that a constitutional issue is involved.

On March 19, 2003, the day
the war began, President Bush sent a letter to Congress in which he said
that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those
who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.” If the staff’s finding that there is “no
credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
United States” is allowed to stand, the Bush administration will be shown to
have gone afoul of the Constitution yet again.

Watch For
New “Intelligence”

So expect new
“intelligence” (and hope against hope that there is time to give it the
smell test). Lehman’s assurance that the commission report will be updated
with new intelligence “right up until we go to press” is by no means
reassuring. If it is the truth that is sought, there should by now be
widespread awareness of the pitfalls of cherry-picking unevaluated,
uncorroborated, “this-just-in” pieces of intelligence.

Also watch for
administration attempts to change the final draft report, if the Republican
commissioners do not succeed in neutralizing offending passages.

Tim Russert called
attention Sunday to reports that the White House had been allowed to review
the staff reports just made public, and asked if that was appropriate. Ben-Veniste
indicated that the purpose of reviewing the reports is supposed to be to
find and eliminate any classified information. He also said, though, that
the White House “went somewhat beyond that and took issue with some of what
the staff had concluded.”

Indeed, an early draft of
one draft report was changed, according to Newsweek. A passage expressing
skepticism about the account of Cheney getting Bush’s approval for the
shoot-down order was reportedly removed after the White House objected.

Ben-Veniste told Russert
that the White House will review the final report before it is made public.
Thus, there will be considerable opportunity for the manufacture of
“insurmountable” classification problems, for delay and for other
mischief—given the potential political explosiveness of the commission’s
final report.

It will not be surprising
if the final report is not made public until well after the target date of
July 26 (the same day the Democratic Convention opens in Boston). If the
report does meet that target, it is likely that it will appear in
significantly truncated form.

Ray McGovern a 27-year veteran of the CIA, regularly briefed
George H. W. Bush as vice president and, earlier, worked with him closely
when he was director of CIA. Mr. McGovern is on the Steering Group of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is now co-director of the
Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in the inner city of
Washington. (rmcgovern@slschool.org).
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a coast-to-coast
enterprise; mostly intelligence officers from analysis side of CIA.

Other Articles by Ray
McGovern and Veteran Intelligence Officers for Sanity